Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T12:20:55.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Doctor Faustus: dramaturgy and disturbance

from Part II - Readings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2010

Emma Smith
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Garrett A. Sullivan, Jr
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

At a number of levels, and in a variety of ways, Doctor Faustus can be said to disturb, if not assault, the sensibilities of its audience. An inchoate and slippery work at the level of text, Doctor Faustus also unsettles via its deployment of false leads, its presentation of a divided central character and its construction of an anti-hero defined by his will to power. This chapter argues that Marlowe's play is distinctive for the ways in which it simultaneously glorifies and debunks the aspirations to greatness of its titular protagonist. To illustrate this singular feature, I concentrate here on the means whereby the dramatist plies his trade, arguing that structural elements, style, poetic diction and the utilisation of an inherited morality technique are at the core of the mixed fortunes of Faustus's ambitions. The prioritisation of the summoning of Helen of Troy and the countdown to death are crucial to the method. By the same token, I suggest, the characteristics of Marlowe's dramaturgy are extended, inverted and, in some cases, finessed when different manifestations of the play are placed in critical dialogue.

In this connection, it is vital to acknowledge that Doctor Faustus exists in two versions, one published in 1604 and the other in 1616. There are hundreds of differences between the plays: the 1604 version is spare and lean, while the longer 1616 version is crammed with comic business and explosive theatrical incident. The 1616 text deletes some of the 1604 text while adding new materials of its own. Differences in punctuation can amount to radically contrasting interpretations of the same lines. But which is by Marlowe? This is a difficult question to answer. It is now generally agreed that the text published in 1604 originates in the ‘foul papers’ (uncorrected and jumbled manuscript copies or the draft authorial manuscript) of Marlowe and a collaborator.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×